Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I certainly appreciate your opinion for what it's worth.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That is false. Some crustal elements fit together since they were together before they moved apart, what a wonder that is ... tear a piece of paper and now matter how far you move it, the pieces will still fit together.
We can see where the India piece was once together with South America, Australia and Antarctica and we have substantial evidence geologic and biologic of where each piece had attached and moved to and when this happened.
It works just fine on Earth where there is no supporting evidence for your claim. Let's first falsify your unevidenced reverie:
A 23,000 square mile section of rock beneath the eastern Mediterranean (highlighted dark blue) is 340 million years old.
And, BTW, the multiple dating methods used are not flawed and all agree.
You don't seem to be able to get anything right. I live a few miles from continental crust that is less than an hour old, the oldest crustal elements on the island I live on are under a half-million years old.
We could argue that, but everything you've said so far is quite obviously false so there is no need to.
Well ... your "hypothesis" has been falsified so you need to discard it.
You have failed to make any sort of sense, you demonstrate a lack of basic scientific knowledge, so I'm sure you will not grasp why your "hypothesis" is wrong. Based on past experience, I full expect you will continue to spew falsities. Su[rise me.
Although it was suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, any significant expansion or contraction of Earth has been rejected for lack of evidence. There is no support for your "hypothesis" in today's scientific community, the "debate" was over long ago. Wiki is rather clear:
Scientific consensus
The hypothesis had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action.[10] During the 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics—initially based on the assumption that Earth's size remains constant, and relating the subduction zones to burying of lithosphere at a scale comparable to seafloor spreading[10]—became the accepted explanation in the Earth Sciences.
The scientific community finds that significant evidence contradicts the Expanding Earth theory, and that evidence used in support of it is better explained by plate tectonics:
- Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques and modelization of the measurements by the horizontal motions of independent rigid plates at the surface of a globe of free radius, were proposed as evidence that Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[20] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[21]
- The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[22][23][24]
- Imaging of lithosphere fragments within the mantle supports lithosphere consumption by subduction.[23][24]
- Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8 percent of today's radius.[25][26] However, the methodology employed has been criticised by the Russian geologist Yuriy Chudinov.[27]
- Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of Earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[28]
- How do mountains form on an expanding earth?
- What about issues of the increase in the moment of inertia of the earth, which would mean that the rate of rotation of the earth would have to decrease beyond that caused by tidal friction in order to conserve angular momentum?
- How about a change in Newton's universal gravitational constant?
- Among other issues would be perturbations in orbits of the Earth and it's Moon.
- Not to mention that there is no mechanism for the expansion.
Last edited:
and then, you have to figure out how to test your hypothesis!
Alison Wonderland
Member
Looks like it just got ripped to shreds.
I saw that. But I can remain comfortable, because coming up with a test or counter-example test is always necessary to further a hypothesis.
Might I suggest you try to learn something about the scientific method, and then answer the question yourself?
Frankly, I think it's better than a lot of the superstitious bumpf that far too many people anchor their whole lives on: "I think old Marjorie down the road is a witch, because she's ugly and lives alone and my cat died last month. That's enough reason to drown her...so let's do it."
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No, all of the earths continental plates fit together perfectly, including those surrounding the pacific plate.
Actually, India broke away from Africa, not South America. It was connected to Australia and Antarctica as well, but India never slammed into Asia. There is no slamming of continents happening. The continents are not moving at all. The crust is cracking, pulling apart, and being filled up with new mantle material. There is no subduction.
That very well may be the case. But that does not discredit the theory of an expanding earth. Cracks in continental plates have been occurring for millions of years. Continental plates are still breaking up today. New fault lines are created, and the voids are filled with rising mantle material. The original break between north america and Asia occurred as a fracture in the continental crust. It was previously one continent. Because the earth is growing and therefore fracturing and spreading, new mantle materials fills the gaps that were created and the two land masses appear to be moving apart. Now that crack is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean which remains the weak point for this region. It just so happens to now be located in the middle of the Atlantic ocean where the spreading is and has been taking place, because that is where the fault is. The spreading is not a result of two land masses moving apart from one another. The spreading is due to earths expansion, which is causing the fracturing and therefore the spreading of the earth's crust, and the mid-Atlantic ridge is simply the weak spot where new mantle material is being deposited.
I appreciate your opinion for what it's worth, but I do not agree. And I know for a fact that "all" do not agree.
Wow, that is amazing...I'm so proud of you.
Of course.
Is that right? How so?
You're probably right about that.
I hope I don't let you down.
Thanks for the information. It's so very useful.
Indeed, even today the hypothesis of an expanding earth still lacks a scientifically established plausible and verifiable mechanism of action, which is what I have been trying to present. I admit my theory...notice, "MY THEORY" is that the decreasing density of the universe may very well be the mechanism of action causing the earth to expand. And I have no intention of trying to establish its plausibility, nor its verifiability as a mechanism of action. I am simply proposing MY THEORY as a plausible mechanism for this action.
I'm not all that interested in the flawed theories that you are clinging to.
I agree that angular momentum must be conserved. And I have little doubt it has been conserved.
If there was a change in Newton's universal gravitational constant, I am unaware of that change. Does in fact Newton's universal gravitational constant change if an objects density decreases, and it's volume increases?
Oh dear, is that bad?
Except of course for MY THEORY.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That is clear and simply incorrect. You might as well be saying the sky is green. You can not find a single recent scientific publication that supports your fantasy
That is the case and it falsifies your proposed timescale.
There is too much incorrect information, all of which is presented with any supporting evidence, to bother refuting in detail ... it is a tactic know as a Gish Gallop and it does not wash. How about reaching into that steaming pile of horse pucky that you are dishing up and displaying a few shining nuggets?
You do not appreciate it, you do not understand it, given your lack of support for your claims you agreement or lack of agreement is entirely irrelevant. Please name some competent authorities that do not agree.
Who cares? Are you also proud to have your claimed timescale further falsified?
I'm glad that you agree.
You're probably right about that.
You have.
Without an effective evidence based rebuttal it proves you wrong.
By now you should know enough science to recognize that you are not presenting a theory. A theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and, repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. Your ravings do no rise to that level, keep in mind that while you are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts or your own private theories.
Nor are you seemingly interested in demonstrating that your construct belongs anywhere but on the scrap heap.
How has that been accomplished?
If the mass changes constant changes.
According to Newton's law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two point-like bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them:
Bad? Likely! In any cases it's bad for you since it destroys your misapprehension.
You do not have a THEORY, you are clutching a falsified hypothesis, and that's being generous.
Last edited:
The basic scientific method is sound:
1. Collect data
2. Formulate testable hypotheses based on that data
3. Perform observations to test the hypotheses from 2.
4. Discard or modify those hypotheses that do not fit the data.
5. Go to 2.
The problems come when hypotheses are NOT tested and not subject to all possible tests. It is *trivial* to find 'explanations' for individual experiments. To get the explanations to agree with the wider knowledge is much, much harder.
So, for example, if a claim is made that the gravitational constant changes as an explanation, the consequences of *that* have to be investigated and tested. Of course, that involves putting the hypotheses into a more detailed theory of *how* and *why* the gravitational constant changes. Since several people have proposed that some of the basic constants of nature change over time, it is a good idea to consider what they hypothesized and how the tests went in formulating your own version. Of course, that means learning another area, its methods and abilities and possibly becoming convinced you are wrong. In particular, in this case, it would involve a detailed mathematical theory along with proposed observations to distinguish the current theory from your new one.
Furthermore, you need to establish that the gravitational constant does, in fact, change *before* you can use it to explain other phenomena, especially those outside of the theory of gravityy (like the shape of continents). You don't get to put one untested hypothesis on top of another on top of another. You need to formulate detailed hypotheses at every stage *and* test them *before* using them for other explanations.
Another issue with the scientific method comes when social demands affect the development of the ideas. So, for example, it is common in social sciences and in medical research to allow p<.05 as a standard of justifiability. This promotes bad research an p-phishing. It also produces many results that are false positives. If, instead, a p value of, say, .0005 was used, a LOT of the faulty research in these areas would disappear. But fewer papers would be published and more careers would be in jeopardy. Having such a low p value leads to a LOT of bad conclusions and causes an overal lack of confidence in scientific results, even outside of the areas that have this standard.
1. Collect data
2. Formulate testable hypotheses based on that data
3. Perform observations to test the hypotheses from 2.
4. Discard or modify those hypotheses that do not fit the data.
5. Go to 2.
The problems come when hypotheses are NOT tested and not subject to all possible tests. It is *trivial* to find 'explanations' for individual experiments. To get the explanations to agree with the wider knowledge is much, much harder.
So, for example, if a claim is made that the gravitational constant changes as an explanation, the consequences of *that* have to be investigated and tested. Of course, that involves putting the hypotheses into a more detailed theory of *how* and *why* the gravitational constant changes. Since several people have proposed that some of the basic constants of nature change over time, it is a good idea to consider what they hypothesized and how the tests went in formulating your own version. Of course, that means learning another area, its methods and abilities and possibly becoming convinced you are wrong. In particular, in this case, it would involve a detailed mathematical theory along with proposed observations to distinguish the current theory from your new one.
Furthermore, you need to establish that the gravitational constant does, in fact, change *before* you can use it to explain other phenomena, especially those outside of the theory of gravityy (like the shape of continents). You don't get to put one untested hypothesis on top of another on top of another. You need to formulate detailed hypotheses at every stage *and* test them *before* using them for other explanations.
Another issue with the scientific method comes when social demands affect the development of the ideas. So, for example, it is common in social sciences and in medical research to allow p<.05 as a standard of justifiability. This promotes bad research an p-phishing. It also produces many results that are false positives. If, instead, a p value of, say, .0005 was used, a LOT of the faulty research in these areas would disappear. But fewer papers would be published and more careers would be in jeopardy. Having such a low p value leads to a LOT of bad conclusions and causes an overal lack of confidence in scientific results, even outside of the areas that have this standard.
You have not presented a *theory*. You haven't even presented a coherent hypothesis. You have presented a collection of vague ideas and rather fantastic claims.
If you want to actually present a *theory* that includes a changing gravitational constant, you would first have to describe *in detail* the effects on the dynamics of standard situations under your theory. For example, you could claim that the gravitational constant is decreasing over time: G=a-bt. Then, you could apply that to the gravitational force: F=(a-bt)Mm/r^2 and, with F=ma, see how that would affect the dynamics of, say, planetary orbits. This would allow you to give estimates (at least, maximum values) for your parameters a and b. In particular, the value of b would be significant.
Then, you could compare the results you get with the observations we have of galaxies that are, say, 200 million light years away. Since the dynamics would be quite different 200 million years ago (by your hypothesis), the differences in the dynamics of such galaxies should be quite clear. Have you done this? What were the results? How do you deal with the fact that a galaxy only 200 million light years away is a very close galaxy on the cosmic scale?
If you want to claim that the changing gravitational constant affects something like the speed of light, you will have to extend your basic theory to include such effects *and* test the results of such an extension.
By the way, to even get started on this program would take learning at least a bit of mathematics. Differential equations would get you in the door, but probably a bit of perturbation theory would also be required to give definite predictions. If you want to include a changing speed of light, you would also have to learn special and possibly general relativity and formulate the changes in those required under your program.
Have you done ANY of this? No.
So you do not have a theory.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"a changing gravitational constant"
Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please
Regards
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
No... there is a big difference..
I'll explain:
Philosophy is assumptions about things we cannot measure. religion (or faith) is a philosophy as one.
For example:
"The unexamined life is not worth living", socrates
Do you find anything scientific about this claim?
In order to make it a more "scientific approach", you would have to:
1. Have a clear definition of what "unexamined life" represents.
This would be the definition upon which you will base your theory.
Please understand that it is not a "guess" the meaning, rather deciding what this specific theory is going to test
for the post, lets assume:
Unexamined life means a lack of a human to explore and try to learn as much as possible about hits surroundings and existence.
2. Have a clear definition of what is "Worth living" means.
Same as before, not finding the meaning, rather deciding what is the meaning of it in your theory.
3. You would commence thousands of studies and perform thousands of tests, You will need find exact correlation between people's will to live "worthily", against those who don't, and compare the amount of "life examination" they did.
(Just about now, you probably begin to understand why it is becoming harder as we go scientifically)
Now, Lets assume you collected all your data.
Then you will have to:
4. Explain anomalies that you find in your research.
5. Be able to explain why contradictions are solved.
6. Have this theory accepted by many others you had to prove that your theory is right.
7. Be able to admit that you might be wrong about things and accept other's better theory.
On philosophy, the rules are less strict:
I Could claim whatever "speaks to ones heart" (Lacking a better short term), and convince him that I am right.
Meaning, it can be accepted subjectively.
A philosophy, might also lead you to committing terrible things. science does not.
You can do great with science, and you can do horrible things. But what lies behind any human action (putting aside illness) is his philosophy about life.
Hope that clears the question
Thumper
Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Well the scientific method itself is pretty easy -
- Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
- Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
- Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
- Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
gnostic
The Lost One
Scientific Method is a process of testing any new hypothesis or updating existing scientific theory, and if possible to refute them.
The test results (or evidences) will either determine if the statements (eg. explanation and prediction) are true or false, and if it is probable or not probable.
Scientific Method, and science in general, particular hard science or natural science, deal with what's probable or not probable, they don't deal in absolute.
Scientific Method involved the following processes or steps:
- To formulate a hypothesis, from preliminary observation of the phenomena. (This will involved providing explanation of WHAT the phenomena is, and HOW does it work.)
- Within the hypothesis, the scientist must also provide some prediction on how the phenomena work.
- Organise apparatus for experiments or tests, or how to find evidences, as well as organising how to record any finding.
- Then scientist would try to verify or refute statements, by carrying out of a number of repeated tests, experiments or finding evidences.
- The number of tests done or evidences found, would be tallied up, to determine if the hypothesis is probable or not.
- The conclusion would be based on test results or evidences and compared to hypothesis.
- If the tests have been largely successful, then it could be presented to the peer review for further testings.
This is different from philosophy. Philosophy and science are not the same things, paarsurrey.
Philosophy deal with a lot of questions on WHY. Philosophy is mostly focused on the reasons WHY, and it is mostly just TALK. There are philosophy in science too, like Empiricism, Analytic Positivism, for example, but like other philosophies, they are just TALK, no action, no testing.
While science differs to philosophy, because it mainly focused on questions of WHAT and HOW. Science require to answer those questions in a more real world, through empirical and verifiable tests and evidences.
For instance, in medicine, people require understanding about the human body and how to treat if the person become ill or have disease.
In term of basic biology, for instance, the heart.
- In anatomy, you would study WHAT is the heart, and WHAT are the functions of the heart?
- While in physiology, you would study HOW does the heart work or function?
- You would examine and investigate the heart, to find out WHAT is the disease that causing the heart problem?
- And then you would find HOW to treat the patient and WHAT treatment to use?
Knowing the WHAT and HOW will get things done.
Knowing WHY doesn't help science figuring out what to do and how to do it; knowing WHY don't get things done.
Do you understand what I am getting at, paarsurrey?
I don't see Scientific Method to be a philosophy. Scientific Method, or some elements of it, may have some historical roots in certain philosophies (epistemology, empiricism, analytic positivism), they are no longer dependent upon philosophies.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Meanwhile back on planet Earth...
If you use any technology from cars to computers to planes, you have industrialists, venture capitalists, college and high school drop-outs to thank, not scientists- they are largely employed today in fighting against all the technologies that make modern industrialized society possible.
Scientists value their careers,their ideology, government grants, the opinion of their peer pressure reviewers, more free grants, book sales, beard growing, where to order pizza on campus at 5 am, and grants to pay for them..
Meanwhile back on planet Earth...
If you use any technology from cars to computers to planes, you have industrialists, venture capitalists, college and high school drop-outs to thank, not scientists- they are largely employed today in fighting against all the technologies that make modern industrialized society possible.
Scientists value their careers,their ideology, government grants, the opinion of their peer pressure reviewers, more free grants, book sales, beard growing, where to order pizza on campus at 5 am, and grants to pay for them..
Wow, what a truly amazing perspective. Let me ask you this. Pick ANY of the technologies you listed and provide evidence that scientists weren't crucial to the foundational aspects of creating that technology. You pick!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
All of 'em
Henry Ford; Industrialist
Wright brothers; high school drop outs
Bill Gates; dropped out of college
Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse, Richard Dawkins:
Fabulous Ivy League education, credentials, awards, careers, books sales, TV appearances as 'scientists'
-- combined practical contribution to science itself? somewhere behind the inventor of the Chip Clip I think you will find!
Please correct me if I am wrong
You answered a question I didn't ask. Come on man, I'm cool with inventors and innovators - good on 'em!
ALL OF THEM relied on scientists that came before them. ALL OF THEM !
No matter what the scientific method is, it must be scientific. It is a tautology.
Ciao
- viole
Augustus
…
Did they though?
The car for example wasn't invented through the formal process of science, not even the engine.
The machines of the Industrial Revolution weren't begun by scientists but inventors and tinkerers concerned with practical application of technology rather than the underlying theory behind them.
Scientific explanations of the products happened after they were invented, but they generally came about through trial and error (and often a fair bit of luck) from people without a scientific education.
To some extent it depends on how broadly you want to define science though. But formal academic enquiry strictly adhering to a scientific method gets a lot more credit than it deserves when it comes to its role in contributing to technological innovations.
One argument about why there was no scientific revolution in China despite the potential was that science was only valued to the extent it could contribute to practical developments. In Europe it was seen as worth studying despite its lack of practical application (strangely enough due to its link to theology).